re: Leach fired!

quote:

---

adam james address just got posted on the team leach facebook w

---

This story just keeps getting better.

quote:

---

I'd like to think that Graham Harrell letter is a pretty good indication of what others thought of Adam James if I hadn't heard rumors that Graham Harrell was a GRADE-A douchebag himself.

---

Yes, well, more evidence that whether a person is a douche is an opinion, not a fact.

The Tech faithful in our office are fuming about the whole mess and vowing to cut off all alumni contributions. As a sometimes Tech fan myself, I think it's sad.

Ouch. Hope this kid has other talents, 'cause I don't see him playing football for a living.

quote:

---

I'd like to think that Graham Harrell letter is a pretty good indication of what others thought of Adam James if I hadn't heard rumors that Graham Harrell was a GRADE-A douchebag himself.

---

i can agree, but since a number of other players and coaches have said the same thing i think you can take his word for it.

quote:

---

Under Louisiana law you cannot exercise an othewise lawful right (such as the right to terminate employment at will in the absence of a contractual agreement requiring cause) if you are acting in bad faith, i.e., for the purpose of harming the other person without a legitimate benefit to oneself. This concept is broadly known as "abuse of right."

---

First, let me say that I have never heard of anyone recovering under an abuse of right theory. I can see no court in Louisiana or otherwise allowing such a vague principle to overcome the otherwise settled contractual expectations of the parties.

Second, that's Louisiana; this is Texas. In Texas, there is no duty of good faith between contracting parties unless a special relationship exists. The Texas Supreme Court says that the special relationship don't come along often. They exist between insurer and insured, and fiduciary and beneficiary. The relationship between employer and employee is not the kind of special relationship that implies a duty of good faith.

I'm not saying that Leach has no claim. What I am saying is that the motive of a party in a breach of contract case is not legally relevant.

at Texas Tech.

And Monterray.

if it hasn't made this website yet, here you go.

totally railroaded.

TT internal emails!

if someone has scooped me on this well... shite.

quote:

---

First, let me say that I have never heard of anyone recovering under an abuse of right theory. I can see no court in Louisiana or otherwise allowing such a vague principle to overcome the otherwise settled contractual expectations of the parties.

---

The principle of good faith/bad faith and abuse of rights are well-settled and well-understood law in both Louisiana and under traditonal civil law (as applied in places like France, Spain, Italy, Latin America, etc.). Bad faith termination of contract has been recognized as a cause of action in Louisiana, though it is fairly rare.

The way in which the law deals with bad faith/abuse of rights is one of the principle distinctions between the civil law of obligations and common law of contracts. Under the traditional legal doctrines of civil law, and as expressly provided in the Louisiana Civil Code, one is expected to perform one's obligations in good faith. Good faith is generally implied in common law contracts as well, but civil law jurisdictions seem to give it more substance.

There are a number of cases and statutes which reflect the good faith doctrine in Louisiana. For example, when a contract does not specify the duration, either party can terminate, but still must give reasonable notice under the circumstances. The Louisiana Civil Code expressly requires reasonable notice. This reflects the notion of good faith as applied by the courts and in the doctrine of civil law. This situation isn't explicitly "abuse of rights," but is consistent with the doctrine and related to it.

More expressly recognizing the doctrine is a case involving termination of at-will employees to avoid consequences of paying otherwise due benefits (at least where the employer retained the discretion to pay or not pay the benefits upon termination).

While the doctrine is raised somewhat often, it isn't often relied upon by the courts.

And what did you expect him to say?